A new message - Restoring trust in government

That has to be the message that the Republican party must adapt for 2014, 2016 and perhaps beyond.

The Democrat party is the party of big government.  The Republican party is supposed to have been the party of limited government. They haven't been entirely successful at that message, and worse still at explaining why limited government is in the best interest of people of all creeds and ethnicities.  They have failed to fully capitalize on the notion that the party of big government has become the party of Big Brother.

Just trust me and you'll be okay, alright? Uh, I think I'll pass on that.

The flaws of big intrusive government are staring America in the face.  Heck, they are slapping America in the face. Big government invites fascism but people just aren't getting it.  

Still if the message is not getting through we have two things we can change - the messenger or the message. Since there is no Ronald Reagan on the horizon who can cut through the morass of biased liberal media, and take the case to the American people in a straightforward and engaging manner.  What's worse, is that conservatives can't even agree on who the messenger should be.  That leaves the message.  And the message needs a face lift.

We conservatives can all agree that government is an out of control behemoth.  But how we take that message to 'centrist' voters can be done far more effectively by simply tweaking how we say it.  And now is an extremely opportune time to do it. With the scandals tripping over each other for headlines - IRS favoritism, NSA telephone and email eavesdropping on everyone, the deaths and cover up of government ineptitude in Benghazi and the Fast and Furious debacles, and the government's snooping and potential persecution of news agencies and individuals - there is no better time to plant the seeds of a new message.

The message needed is simple.

We must restore America's trust in government.

That's pretty simple.  It appeals (or should) across party lines.  It doesn't say we need to reduce the size of government, but it does not preclude it. It acknowledges that mistakes have been made but does not need to affix blame.  It's forward looking and has a ring to it that hints of change (and hope). It implies that bipartisanship is needed but does not mandate it.

The same points could be made for other messages, certainly, but it allows a lot of flexibility while not being so vague as hope and change as to not address any specific problem.  Conservatives know restoring trust in government means that bureaucratic departments must be answerable to a watchdog and ultimately the

American people. Liberals on the other hand would be grateful for the transparency that Obama promised but has steadfastly avoided.

As a political point, the message is simple, memorable and not even something Obama could argue against except by saying there is no need to restore trust in government I/we are already trustworthy.  Really? That's a head-in-the-sand response and not one likely to carry any weight with most voters but particularly younger voters who seem to have a libertarian bent to their liberalism or conservatism.  Further on the political front it makes a great foil to Hillary Clinton and where "what does it matter" defense of the administration's bungling and cover-up on the September 11th Benghazi attack.

Carpe Diem GOP, carpe diem.

Timing is almost everything

I've got a job interview - actually a phone screen interview - this morning and yesterday I came down with a wicked head cold and some sort of infection.  Timing is almost everything.  Nevertheless I will muddle through as best I can, because perseverance and preparedness have to count for something, right? Details matter.

If I were the president and these scandals were all unfolding, I would make sure that I controlled how the information about each of these scandals came out.  I wouldn't be surprised if the terrible leader was still being a very good politician and doing everything he can behind the scenes to control not only the spin on everything coming out, but the timing.

I hope his political opponents are thinking the same thing. Look at the Guardian interviews with whistleblower/traitor Snowden on the NSA leaks.  Not everything came out at the same time, and the ACORN investigation/sting run by James O'Keefe was bled out slowly with one video at a time.  It made the scandal loom larger, hold the public consciousness longer and also gave the agency enough rope (time) to hang itself by claiming, each time, that these were isolated incidents.

My point is simple - those involved in investigating these scandals are facing a hyper-political administration.  There had better be some thought going into managing the politics and the timing of revelations.  All at once could overwhelm the administration and also the public's perception, but it could also result in a temporary impact.  It could also mean that the various scandals will compete for the headlines and to a degree, cancel each other out.  That may be what the president is hoping to have happen.  On the other hand, a slower, staggered release of scandal-related material may have a longer lasting impact but take longer to take hold.  There are pros and cons to how to handle all these concurrent scandals.  I'm not sure that Republicans are staying on top of how to manage them all, but they should be.

Meanwhile, I hope my voice holds up for an hour.